So many scientists and scholars and researchers and media outlets have attributed the problem of women’s underrepresentation in the STEM fields to be a lack of spatial and mechanical reasoning skills. While women have these skills, evidence supports that they are significantly less adept than men in these areas, on average. Kimura’s essay focuses on this as the main reason for the high number of men at the top, compared to the low number of women. But people, come on….what about everything else?
After doing a quick search online, I found that when you type in ‘cognitive skills that are important in the STEM fields,’ you end up with thousands of websites with lists upon lists of factors that influence success in the sciences. Audrey B. Champagne, Professor of Science Education at the State University of New York, gives a list 62 skills long that all contribute to an individual’s science ability. Spatial skill and mechanical reasoning are only 2 out of 62 important skills. While it may be true that these specific skills are weighted more heavily in the science fields, i.e. they are considered more important, this one discrepancy in sex-related skills cannot account for the entire problem of women’s underrepresentation.
This is what Nora Newcombe asserts in her essay, Taking Science Seriously: Straight Thinking About Spatial Sex Differences. She, like Spelke and Grace, starts with the speech made by former Harvard President Larry Summers, and analyzes the flaws in his argument. She states that he was right on one level, but had only captured one part of the picture.
Throughout her essay, Newcombe cites popular evidence that attempts to explain spatial ability differences and cognitive sex differences through evolutionary biology, and pokes holes and finds discrepancies and faults in all of them. She supports that there is a gap between men and women regarding spatial ability; but is not convinced of any of the evidence as to why this is true – other than a possible random ‘spandrel’ of accidental relation to hormone levels. Instead, she focuses on the studies regarding how this skill can be improved. And it can! The evidence supports both men and women increasing substantially in their ability to perform well on spatial tasks; although the scores of men and women still do not converge (74).
Being honest, this is a little disheartening – but on the positive side, what it does prove is that biological traits are not fixed, and can be improved ‘fairly easily.’ Newcombe states that, “for most people there is a linkage, albeit a mistaken one, between biology and immutability,” (70). This relates back to Valian’s essay and the incremental and entity theorems, how people view math and science ability as fixed when in reality it has great malleability potential.
However, in her conclusion, Newcombe speculates as to how bad it would really be if we never found a way to reach convergence in spatial ability. Is spatial ability really the deciding factor to who does well in the STEM fields? “There are multiple factors that determine success at the highest levels of science, and beyond some (high) threshold, I doubt that extra increments of the same cognitive ingredients explain much variance,” (75). Being able to explain results, communicate with peers and others involved in your work, write effective literature regarding your work, and inspire other with your work are very heavily verbal tasks. And who is known to be superior verbally on average? Women (Hyde & Linn 1988). What needs to happen is for individuals to identify their own personal strengths and weaknesses, and work to improve where they lack. Only then will we see a full range of diversity and skills at the top in the STEM fields.
Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis.
Hyde, Janet S.; Linn, Marcia C.
Psychological Bulletin, Vol 104(1), Jul 1988, 53-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.53
Picture: Toll house cookies co.
Be First to Comment